PSCI 2210 : COMPARATIVE POLITICS Bachelor of Political Science, KIRKHS, IIUM

1. How to compare
Week 5,
Sem 1, 2015/2016
ROHANA ABDUL HAMID

2. TECHNIQUES
• 1. CASE STUDIES
• 2. FOCUSED COMPARISON
• 3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

3. 1. Case studies
What is a case study ?
Intensive scrutiny of one case
Micro level and macro level analysis : the selection of
cases. Thus, it is a case oriented , not variable oriented.
Thick description. Multi-method : reading academic lit,
secondary documents, primary materials, interviews
What are cases ?
Individuals, organisations, processes, programs,
institutions, events
RQ : How and why questions:

4. Examples of case studies
• 1) Graham Allison’s study of a single case
(1971) about 1962 Cuban Missile Crises. He
explained the crises by using three competing
theories – U.S and Soviet Union performed as
a) rationale actors, b) complex bureaucracies
and c) politically motivated groups or persons.
• Single case study

5. Examples
2) A book about major strategies for improving
social conditions by illustrating four policy topics :
welfare reform, strengthening the child
education, education reform and transforming
neighborhoods. The book refers to specific cases
of successful programs.
• Results : The writer develops generalization
based on the case studies of the need for the
successful programs to be results oriented
• Multiple case cross analysis

6. Example [case studies with multiple cases]
3) A book with 8 social programs . The commonalities
in the program : the effectiveness of the programs
[although many these policy programs often meets
failure].
• However, the programs varied widely in their focus
such as : education, nutrition, drug prevention,
preschool education, delinquent youths, drug
treatment, homelessness, mental health.
• Findings : can identify programs that are low in cost ,
programs that have convincing evidence of long term
effects; enable the government to replicate
the programs

7. Single case study : comparative?
1) Single case study can be subsumed under
comparative method if it is theory-driven.
How ?
a) Theory infirming and theory confirming case
study : analysis of a single case within the
framework of established generalizations.
The case is the test of the proposition , which
in turn may confirmed or infirmed by it.

8. ….
b) Deviant case : studies of single case that are
known to deviate from established
generalizations.
So , why do we select the case ?
We want to uncover relevant variables that are not
considered previously.
What is the theoretical value?
It weakens the original proposition , able to suggest
modified proposition that may be stronger.

9. …..
• C) Representative case : Typical and standard
example of a wider category. It is common, useful
and undramatic.
• A collection of representation of cases
(representative) will provide raw materials for
later distillation/ subsequent generalizations.
Example : Coalition government – choose to study
the phenomena in your country in detail. Home
country is your research site, but you hope that
the results would contribute to broader
comparative understanding. HOW ?

10. Disadvantage of single case study and
who do we do about it ?
• 1) What works in country A may not work in
country B.
• Why ?
Contextual differences. But by drawing
analogies , case studies can encourage the
search for more general knowledge .
Asking question : What differences between
countries explain why the same policy led to
contrasting result ?

11. Other types of case study
4) Prototypical case study = The case is chosen
because it is expected to become so.
Example : US has been used as a prototype case for
democracy. Why ? This is because it is pioneering
in democracy. Thus, when we study the case, it
helps us to understand the phenomenon
occurred elsewhere.
• 5) Archetypical case study = creates the category.
• Example : French Revolution. Refer to French
revolution when you want to look at the study of
revolution.

12. ….
• 6) Critical type of case study : if it works here,
it would work anywhere.
• Example: Imposing democracy in Iraq (case).
Iraq – a country with little experience of
democracy (a case). If democracy survives in
Iraq, it would work anywhere such as Libya,
Syria.

13. 2. FOCUSED COMPARISON
• What is it ?
• A small N studies – concentrate on the intensive
comparison ( of a political phenomenon)
• Choose a study because of the case
• The number of countries – either 2 ( paired ,
binary comparison) or 3 (triangular comparison)
Works well when few countries are compared over
time.

14. How do you select the countries ?
• Apply two approaches : Most similar design
and Most Different Design
Advantage of most similar design : the more
similar units being compared, it is possible to
isolate the factors responsible for differences
between them .
Example : Social security programs in Canada
and USA

15. ….
• Advantage of Most Different design : Can test the
relationship by finding out whether it can be
observed in a range of different countries.
• If it is proven to be positive, our confidence that
the relationship is real (the relationship is not on
the basis of third factors, unmeasured variable)
• Example: If we find that plurality method of
election of is associated with two-party system in
the diverse group of countries, the
robustness(strong, sturdy) in the relationship
would increase.

16. Statistical Analysis
• Variable-based, not country specific.
• Large number of countries/cases. The data are
used for generalisation.
• It permits us to explore covariation between
variables.
• The variables – we can measure quantitatively.
• In statistical analysis, the variables are –
dependent and independent.

17. Example of studies using statistical
analysis :
1. The higher a person’s social status, the greater
his/her participation in politics.
2. The more affluent (wealthy) a country, the more
likely it is to be an established democracy.
• - Correlation : Positive or negative ?
• - Can you identify the dependent and
independent variables?

18. Statistical approach
• Correlation : the association between
variables
Correlation score is zero 0 : zero linear
relationship
Correlation score , 0.5- 1 = strong correlation
Weak correlation = 0.1- 0.4
Graph : page 93-94

19. Risks to SA : 1) Spurious correlation
• When you have strong correlation between two
variables, but the relationship of the variables
(both or one) depend on third factor
(unmeasured variable).
• How ? Consider correlation between income and
political participation. The third unmeasured
variable is likely to be education.
• Thus, we have to consider all variables (relevant)
in our analysis (research)

20. 2. The direction of causation
• Correlation is not able to determine the
direction of causation. For instance ,
• A) x causes / promotes y or;
• B) y causes / promotes x
• Why ? This is because, correlation shows the
association not the direction.